Qualitative Priority of Pollutants in Taleghan Catchment Using Analytical Hierarchy Process

2011 International Conference on Environment and Industrial Innovation IPCBEE vol.12 (2011) © (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore. Qualitative Priority of Pollutants in Taleghan Catchment Using Analytical Hierarchy Process Mohammad Reza Mohammad Shafiee1, Fatemeh Ghanbari2, Farham Amin Sharee3, Hadi Salehi4 1,3. Faculty of Sciences, Islamic Azad University - Najafabad Branch, Najafabad, Esfahan, Iran 2Environment Research Center, Academic Center for Education 4 Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Isfahan, Iran. Abstract. Water resources are considered as one of the main resources of supplying water for different uses including agriculture, drinking and industry. Due to the recent droughts, knowing and giving qualitative priority to the pollutants of these resources is one of the most important tasks in environmental management. The use of new models in water resources has an important role in the management of these resources. With a brief look at the condition of Iranian Taleghan catchment basin, we understand that the increase of population and raising the public welfare result in changing the land use and threat the natural resources and their reserves. This study aims to employ Expert Choice Software to give priority to different pollutants based on the type of the land use in the basin. In this research, Expert Choice Software was used to identify and classify pollutants in Taleghan catchment. This software works based on Analytical Hierarchy Process. The obtained results showed that sewage, agriculture, outdoor activities, industry, toll services, and restaurants respectively have the highest potential for polluting the basin. The employed model in this study can combine the comments and opinions together in great detail and high precision. The model can also determine the priority of effective variables on the pollution of water resources based on the kind of land use.. Keywords: Pollutant, Taleghan catchment basin, Land use, Analytical Hierarchy Process, Expert Choice Software, Water resources. 1. Introduction Water is one of the natural limited resources and shortage of water is considered as one of the critical issues in many regions of the world. More than 25 percent of the world population live in dry or semi-dry regions. Hence, the management and optimization of water resources are considered as a necessary task [1]. The uncontrolled activities of human beings in catchment basins (in water or in land) usually result in environmental pollutions and decrease the quality of water resources [2, 3, and 4]. The recognition and giving priority to these pollutants based on their significance can be effective in controlling and decreasing these pollutants. Various research studies have been conducted regarding the resources of surface run-off waters by different researchers. For example, Lashkari poor et. al. (2009) tried to recognize the contaminative resources of Kashfrood River and gain continuous awareness of qualitative changes of this river [5]. Moreover, a similar study was conducted by Dehghan et. al. (2008) on the water quality of this river [6]. Fadayi et. al. (2006) also used both the index of water quality and GIS together as a management tool to evaluate the quality of water in Dez River [7]. Another study was performed by Tavallayi Nejad et. al. (2006) to identify qualitative pollutants in the estuary of Karoon River. They suggested some guidelines regarding the improvement of river qualitative management based on qualitative analysis of water samples in nine Corresponding author. Tel.: 0060176538260 E-mail address: mohammadreza.mohammadshafiee@gmail.com 154. stations [8].. Another stuudy was donee on the quallitative zonattion of waterr in Karoon R River by Karrimian et. al.. (2009). Fouur chemical and a biologicaal parameterss were provid ded for evaluuation by thee use of ArcG GIS softwaree and the posssibility of ussing differentt colors of quualitative zon nation for Zoohreh River [[9]. Taleghaan catchmentt basin is loccated in the province p of Tehran T and 120 1 km far fr from the nortthwest of thee city of Tehrran. Taleghann catchment basin is onee of the subsiidiary basins of Sefidroodd catchment basin whichh is bounded by Alamoot in the north, the region of o Ziaran and Samgh Abbad in the souuth, one secttion of Karajj catchment basin b in the east, e and Shaahrood catchm ment basin in n the west (see picture 1)). This basin is located inn a mountainous region with w sharp stteepnesses containing c many m stone outcrops, o andd the highestt and lowestt 4 and 17776 meters alttitude, respecctively, from m the sea leveel. parts have 4300. Pictuure 1: Catchm ment Basin of o Taleghan Dam This baasin consists of 19 subsiddiary basins, each considered as an independentt hydrologic branch in a way that Minavand M subbsidiary basiin has the sm mallest areaa, 2.14 perceent of the w whole basin, and Mehrann subsidiary basin b has the greatest arrea, 13.26 peercent of Taaleghan catchhment basinn. The land of o this basinn includes passtures, lands for dry farm ming, water lands, l and regions with no n use. Accordingly, the main part off the lands inn this region, 89.37 percent of the whole w basin, consists of both b rich andd poor pastu ures. Table 1 shows the conditions c off the present land use in Taleghan T cattchment basin. The technnological dev velopment off computerizeed softwaress and the reecognition of o effective processes inn water resoources have provided a possibility to t use variouus models. The T Expert Choice C Softw ware and the AHP modell have been employed e inn the present study to giive priority to t considereed parameterrs and criterria. This studdy aims to examine e thee utilization of o Expert Choice C Softw ware in the recognition and classifiication of m main pollutan nts of waterr resources. Tablee 1: The present conditionns of land usse in Taleghaan catchmentt basin Land usee. Pasture 71928.5 89/37. Deserteed dry farm ming 3669 9.56 4/56 5. G Garden and waater farming 1651/16 2/05. ugged Rocky ru areaas 3238/99 4/02 2. Meensuration (hectare) Perceentage (menssuration) Commutative percent p. 89/37. 93/93 9. 95/98. 100 0. 2. Materrials and Methodoology At first,, on the basis of library studies s and field f visits in n the year 20009, a list of contaminativ ve factors inn the region was w providedd. In this stuudy, six factoors including g sewage of populous ceenters, outdoo or activities,, agriculture, tollway serrvices, indusstry, and resstaurants and d hotels, andd four criterria of sewag ge, pollutionn indicators, costs of refi fining the poollution, andd the pollutio on managem ment of the ppresent cond ditions weree examined and a evaluatedd. To calcullate the weigghts and giv ve them priority, Expert Choice Soft ftware whichh works basedd on the Analytical Hierrarchy Proceess model waas employedd. Expert Chooice is one of o the strongg 155. and valid softwares for evaluating several criteria together. This software is also approved and supported by Thomas L. Saati, the founder of Analytical Hierarchy Process model. Expert Choice Software has a unique potentiality to use two-by-two comparisons and extract the priorities, and combine different opinions with high precision and finally identify the overall priority of the variables. Moreover, this software can synthesize various judgments in a group model and render the overall results [10]. The Analytical Hierarchy Process, one of the most efficient techniques for making a decision, was proposed by Thomas L. Saati in 1998 for the first time [11]. This process was founded based on pair comparisons and makes it possible for the managers to examine different scenarios. The act of modeling with the use of this method includes the following steps: 1. Making a hierarchical structure for the issue, 2. Determining matrixes for pair comparison and calculating the weight of criteria and variables 3. Examining the compatibility of the system.. 2.1. Making a hierarchical structure for the issue. To better understand an issue of Analytical Hierarchy process, it is firstly necessary to graphically determine different levels of the hierarchy and recognize the relations between the component parts of each level with the component parts of higher and lower levels (see Figure 1). Overall making priority list of contaminative factors in Taleghan catchment basin. Pollution management of the present conditions. Restaurants and hotels. Costs of refining the pollution. Industry. Pollution indicators. Tollway services. Agriculture. Outdoor activities. Sewage. Sewage of populous centers. Figure 1: Hierarchical structure of contaminative factors in Taleghan Catchment basin.. As it is shown in Figure 1, the first level is considered for the aim, the second level for the intended criteria to give priority to variables, and the third level shows the variable under study. After determining the structure of hierarchy, the matrixes for pair comparison should be determined based on the decision maker's opinion. The same process should be repeated distinctly for the variables of each level.. 2.2. Calculating the weight in Analytical Hierarchy process The cat of calculating the weight in Analytical Hierarchy Process can be studied separately in the following two sections: • •. Local priority Overall priority. The local priority can be employed in different methods including the minimum ordinary squares, the minimum of Logarithmic squares, special vector, and estimated methods (such as mathematical mean).. 2.3. Examining the comparisons of the system 156. The matrixes for pair comparisons of the variables and the significance of the criteria should be compatible meaning that if the priority of variable A over variable B is two, and the priority of variable B over variable C is three, then the priority of variable A over variable C should be equal to six. Otherwise, the matrix will be incompatible and the rate of incompatibility should be calculated. To examine the compatibility of the matrixes, suppose we have n criteria of C1, C2, …, Cn and the matrix of their pair comparison is according to the following relation : A = [aij]. i, j = 1, 2, 3, …, n. Relation 1). Where aij shows the priority of element ci over element cj. If there is such a relation in the following matrix : aik × akj = aij i, j, k = 1, 2, …, n Relation 2) then, we say that matrix A is compatible [12].. 3. Results The determined weighted priority between the criteria and existing variables which are used from the software output are mentioned below. The index of sensitivity of criteria and variables are shown in Figures 2 and 3. 10.3% DEBI. 54.1% SEA VAGE. 5.3% SHAKHES. 18.2% AGRI. 49.5% COST. 13.1% OUT DOOR. 35.0% MANAGEMENT. 6.9% INDUS 4.5% WAY 3.3% RESTU. 0. .1. .2. .3. .4. .5. .6. .7. .8. .9. 1. 0. .1. .2. .3. .4. .5. .6. Figure 2: The index of sensitivity between criteria and variables. Obj%. Alt%. .60. .90 .50. .80 .70. .40. .60 .50. .30. .40 .20. .30 .20. .10. .10 .00 DEBI. AGRI SHAKHES. COST. MANAGEMENT. OVERALL. .00 OUT DOOR. Objectives Names DEBI. DEBI. SHAKHES. SHAKHES. COST. COST. MANAGEMENT. MANAGEMENT. INDUS WAY RESTU. Figure 3: The index of sensitivity of variables. Furthermore, a comparison between the priority of each criterion and the variable is illustrated in Figures 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.. 157. Weighted head to head between SEA VAGE and AGRI. <> DEBI SHAKHES COST MANAGEMENT Overall 50.80%. 38.10%. 25.40%. 12.70%. 0%. 12.70%. 25.40%. 38.10%. 50.80%. Figure 4: Weighted head to head between sewage and agriculture. Weighted head to head between SEA VAGE and OUT DOOR. <> DEBI SHAKHES COST MANAGEMENT Overall 50.80%. 38.10%. 25.40%. 12.70%. 0%. 12.70%. 25.40%. 38.10%. 50.80%. Figure 5: Weighted head to head between sewage and outdoor activities. Weighted head to head between OUT DOOR and AGRI. <> DEBI SHAKHES COST MANAGEMENT Overall 50.80%. 38.10%. 25.40%. 12.70%. 0%. 12.70%. 25.40%. 38.10%. Figure 6: Weighted head to head between outdoor activities and agriculture. 158. 50.80%. Weigh hted head to o head betwe een INDUS and a AGRI. <> DEBI SHAKHES COST M ANAGEM EN NT Overall 50.80% %. 38.10%. 25.40%. 12.7 70%. 0%. 12.70%. 25.40%. 38.10 0%. 50.80%. O Objectives Na ames DEBI. DE EBI. SHAKH ES. SH HAKHES. COST. CO OST. MANAG GEMENT. MA ANAGEM ENT T A Alternatives Na ames. SEA VA AGE. SEA VAGE V. AGRI. AGRI. OUT DO OOR. OUT DOOR D. INDUS. INDUS S. WAY. WAY. RESTU. RESTU U. Figure 7: Weeighted head to t head between industry annd agriculture. 4 3 SHAK KHES (L: .053). 2. MAN NAGEMENT (L: .350) DEBI (L: .103). 1. COSTT (L: .495). 0 AGRI INDUS OUT DO RE OOR ESTU S VAGE SEA WAY. Figure 8: Com mparison of each of the ind dex weights annd the variablee. Synthesis: Summary. Syntthesis with h respect to: t Goal: TALEG GHAN WATERSHED MANAGEMEN NTQUALITY. Overall Inconsistency = .21 SEA VAGE E AGRI OUT DOOR R INDUS WAY RESTU. .541 .182 .131 .069 .045 .033. O making g priority list Figure 9: Overall. As it caan be shownn in Figure 9, 9 sewage, aggriculture, ou utdoor activities, industrry, tollway services, s andd restaurants respectivelyy have the highest h poteential for po olluting Taleeghan catchm ment basin. This figuree represents the t combinattion of overaall model. Inn case of an ideal syntheesis, the overrall priority is i calculatedd through the following stteps: 159. First, for each criterion, the priority of the variables will be divided by the most important variable's priority. Then, the obtained value will be multiplied in the priority of obtained criterion and by adding the values for each variable, a value will be obtained for each variable. 1. Sewage (L: .103) 2. Pollution indicators (L: .053) 3. Costs of refining the pollution (L: .495) 4. Pollution management of the present conditions (L: .350). 4. Discussion and Conclusion In this model, the conducted analyses of sensitivity on the intended aims show the sensitivity of variables in relation to all existing criteria. In general, there are five types of analyses of sensitivity in this software. They are dynamic, efficiency, gradient, head to head, and two-dimentional analyses of sensitivity. The head to head figuress used in this study show that how two variables together are compared in relation to one criterion in making the decision. The variable in the left side is always constant and it will be used to be compared with other variables. To make a decision, if the left side variable in relation to the existing criterion has priority over right side variable, a sign toward the left side will be seen on that criterion showing the rate of priority. If the two variables have equal priority, there will be no sign on the variables. The overall result of these comparisons indicates the priority of one variable over another variable considering all the existing criteria in making the decision. Moreover, the obtained results indicate the point that the employed model can combine the opinions with high precision and identify the overall priority of effective variables over the pollution of water resources. With the use of analysis of sensitivity, we can determine how changing the significance of a criterion affects the selective variables. Considering the significance and proportion of effective parameters in the pollution of Taleghan catchment basin, the following managerial guidelines are proposed: • Sewage refining and decreasing nutritive materials of sewage or producing a diverging course for sewage. • Alteration or optimization of farming patterns aiming to decrease spraying insecticides, using chemical fertilizers, and producing less drainage. • Altering land use or preventing land use alteration. • Controlling the erosion and sediment. • Implementing watershed management projects. • Determining the amount of self-refining of surface water resources and continuous protection.. 5. References [1] Kondili, E., Kaldellis, J.K., Papapostolou, C., A Novel Systemic Approach to Water Resources Optimization in Areas with limited Water Resources. Desalination 250 (2010) 297–301. [2] Erturk, A., et al. Water Quality Assessment and Meta Model Development in Melen Watershed Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management 3 (2010) 1-20. [3] Davenport, T.E., Phillips, N.J., Kirschner, B.A., Kirschner, L.T., 1996. The Watershed Protection Approach: A Framework for Ecosystem Protection. Water Sci. Technol. 33 (4/5), 23–26. [4] Brady, D.J., 1996. The Watershed Protection Approach. Water Sci.Technol. 33 (4/5), 17–21. [5] Lashkaripour, G.R., Ghafouri, M., Mousavi Madah, S.M., Babaei, M. A Study of the Origin and Effective Factors in the Pollution of Kashfroud River Surface and Subsurface Water Resource, First Conference on Ground Water, 2009, Behbahan Azad University, Behbahan. [Persian] [6] Dehghan, P., Ghafouri, M., Alami, S. The Effects of Pollutants on the Quality of Kashfroud River, Third Conference on Water Resource Management, 2008, The University of Tabriz. Tabriz. [Persian]. 160. [7] Fadaei, A., Shariat, S.M., Jafarzadeh, N., Sakian, M.R. Simultaneous Application of GIS and Water Quality Indicators as a Management Tool, Seventh International Conference on River Engineering, 2006, Chamran University, Ahvaz. [Persian] [8] Tavalaeinejad, M., Miri, M.A., Lavafiannejad, B., Rangzan, k. Identification of Qualitative Pollutants in the Karoon River Estuary and Provision of Management Solutions to Improve its Quality, Seventh International Conference on River Engineering, 2006, Chamran University, Ahvaz. [Persian] [9] Karimian, A., Jafarzadeh, N., Nabizadeh, R., Afkhami, M. The Use of Geographic Information System in Qualitative Classification of Rivers, 2009; 22(1), 243-250. [Persian] [10] Nikmardan, A. The Introduction of Expert Choice11, First edition, Amirkabir Academic Center for Education, 2009, 27-36. [Persian] [11] Saati, T.L., A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures. J. Match. Psychology, 15 : 234-281., 1997. [12] Asgharpour, M.J. Multi Criteria Decision Making, Fourth Edition, The University of Tehran, 2006, 298-299. [Persian]. 161.